Now that the number of American deaths in Iraq are down we have moved onto the Civil War/attacks on mosques spin on the war. I am not saying that all is well in Iraq, in fact I am not sure it ever was, but the obvious attempt on the part of media to make it as bad as possible becomes more obvious everyday and sometimes I think the media feeds the violence. Dr. Sanity has some very interesting and funny cartoons which poke fun at the media about a not so funny attitude problem.

The leftists inherently desire military defeat for the United States. This is one of their central nonnegotiable goals. Deep in their guts, perhaps even consciously, they perceive America as evil. A victory for our country supposedly translates into one for Halliburton and the major corporations. Only good guys should win wars---and America is allegedly nothing less than a blight on the planet, a bully who must be humbled.

I tried to leave this comment over at Dr. Sanity but there's some tech glitch. Ordinarily I wouldn't bring a comment that belongs there over here, but...

A commenter by the name of "Ludd" had this to say:

Peter Daou did a good job of explaining it on CNN the other day.

Oh, yes. Absolutely. And, I mean, our own -- you know, our own editors back in New York are asking us the same things.

They read the same comments. You know, are there positive stories? Can't you find them?

You don't think that I haven't been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let's see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can't take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they're going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.

Here is what struck me strongly enough to lead me to attempt to comment at Dr. Sanity's site (and I think it relates directly to the "BOOM - Blame Bush" cartoon):

I suspect Mr. Daou explained the Presse Ancienne better than you might have imagined, Ludd.

The "journalists" go to the US/Coalition sources looking to be fed (dogs after biscuits) and discover that concerns about security and success and finding a way to improve and protect human life trump concerns about feeding biscuits to dogs.

So the "journalists" turn to the "insurgents" for their biscuits. There they find no such concern for human life and improvement thereof. Instead of finding an uncooperative US Army Captain or Major who wants no part of seeing a bunch of school children blown to bits the "journalists" take their biscuit and tag along with people who will gladly demonstrate how willing they are to kill anyone, school children or otherwise.

Daou's comments simply dig the whole deeper and he doesn't even realize it. When he runs up against the concerns for security does he ever go to any trouble to try and demonstrate his willingness to cover the story in such a way as to protect the identities and whereabouts involved? I bet when he turns to his "sources" on the "other side" the matter of protecting identities and whereabouts is raised very early in the discussions.

People like Mr. Daou are not interested or, perhaps, are too hung up in their own little world, to realize that they are failing to report a significant portion of the story at hand. But not only are they failing to do what they claim to be their job and for which they claim the right to respect and privilege, they are acting as agents for those who feed them biscuits and snarling and snapping at those who refuse to do so for good reason.

Why is it they cannot see this? Or, conversely, why is it that they willfully participate in it?